tie between iraq and al-qaeda 9/11

[lili462]

yes i know this is old news. but someone on a non-debate forum, started a debate with me over a connection between iraq(sadaam) and al-qaeda. i just want to get everyones opinion, and please no 9/11 commission, i have been over that tonight already. Please, do discuss.

if you would like to see the debate here is the link:http://www.mortigitempo.com/too_bore...7&page=9&pp=10

Start on page 9, i am under the same username. i told him that if he wanted to debate over it to come here and do so, but apparently he has not.

[Scribbler1]

Can't access that link without registering. I'll have to go with what you say.

You can start by telling this guy Osama Bin Laden didn't like Saddam Hussein and called him an "infidel" which pretty much ruled out a partnership.

[lili462]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Can't access that link without registering. I'll have to go with what you say. You can start by telling this guy Osama Bin Laden didn't like Saddam Hussein and called him an "infidel" which pretty much ruled out a partnership.

already told him that..he is still hell bent on proving that there was a connection. now someone else is hounding me. I've been called a moron twice, once by each of them. i dont know why the guy wouldn't come here to a real debate forum and discuss it, probably afraid he will be proven wrong. The forum it's posted in is a Radiohead fan forum for heavens sake.

[nm420]

Do these people actually produce evidence there was a link, or just expect you to provide the evidence of its nonexistence? If they can't produce a cogent argument, it's obvious they're the morons and I wouldn't bother wasting much more time on them.

[lili462]

Quote by: nm420 Do these people actually produce evidence there was a link, or just expect you to provide the evidence of its nonexistence? If they can't produce a cogent argument, it's obvious they're the morons and I wouldn't bother wasting much more time on them.

The person who i was debating with gave me excerpts out of chapter 2 from the 9/11 commission report linking the two (saddams name never mention, just terms like iraqi officials) from the early and mid 90's. I gave him excerpts from chapter 10 of the report, section three which is focused on iraq maybe being involved and in that section it is said that there was little chance that iraq was involved. I also pointed out that it was Sec. Paul Wolfowitz that was so hell bent on bringing war upon iraq. He urged to attack without any good source that saddam was involved. He simply wanted to attack because he believed that iraq was ulitimatley the source of terror. and i'll quote the man "even if there is a 10% chance they were involved...attack" (it was something to that extent).

overall i believe the war in iraq was started over an 11 year old rivalry, and of course (and for those of you who don't like it, feel free to call me a conspiracy theorist) i believe it was a war for oil.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: lili462 already told him that..he is still hell bent on proving that there was a connection. now someone else is hounding me. I've been called a moron twice, once by each of them. i dont know why the guy wouldn't come here to a real debate forum and discuss it, probably afraid he will be proven wrong. The forum it's posted in is a Radiohead fan forum for heavens sake.

That alone should tell you when you are up against a hardhead who wants to do anything BUT debate. Remember, there really isn't a debate on this point. It's a matter of who you believe. This guy believes there is a connection and even if you could have Osama Bin Laden tell him to his face there is no connection he would STILL believe what he believes.

Don't waste your time with him. Waste it here.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: lili462 and of course (and for those of you who don't like it, feel free to call me a conspiracy theorist) i believe it was a war for oil.

And that is the ONE thing Bush can NEVER admit. If he did, he would be sitting in a cage in The Hague.

[lili462]

Quote by: Scribbler1 That alone should tell you when you are up against a hardhead who wants to do anything BUT debate. Remember, there really isn't a debate on this point. It's a matter of who you believe. This guy believes there is a connection and even if you could have Osama Bin Laden tell him to his face there is no connection he would STILL believe what he believes. Don't waste your time with him. Waste it here.

i know, i ended it, i told them it wasn't a debate forum and i would continue not to debate it there any longer. I told them to come here about 3 times and they didn't have the "balls" to do so.

[BobbyO]

That there were connection between Saddam and al-queda is obvious and documented in the 911 report. That is relevent because it obviously puts to myth that there were no connections between the two.

That the 911 report disproves that saddam was involved 911, does not disprove that Iraq and Al queda had connections prior to 911.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: BobbyO That there were connection between Saddam and al-queda is obvious and documented in the 911 report. That is relevent because it obviously puts to myth that there were no connections between the two. That the 911 report disproves that saddam was involved 911, does not disprove that Iraq and Al queda had connections prior to 911.

You mean this?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/US/resources/...Report_Ch2.pdf

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin. In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

This looks like a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and in any case it didn't go anywhere. You can't use this to justify invading Iraq.

[Chris the Chees]

No, don't cave into the, by backing down on the debate. Who cares if its a radiohead fan forum, if you've got a good point to make and they think they can call you a moron for making it then they are bag out of order.

PS. Go on there and tell them that the Manic Street Preachers are better than radio head.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Chris the Chees No, don't cave into the, by backing down on the debate. Who cares if its a radiohead fan forum, if you've got a good point to make and they think they can call you a moron for making it then they are bag out of order.

I disagree. For one thing, I don't know how strict they are on topic content but since it IS a music forum, after all they might frown on full-blown political arguments.

Now, if there is a sub forum for this kind of thing, fine. But I suspect this might be a one on one debate that appeared out of nowhere and if you want to pick the proper battlefield I don't think that is it. And just because you can't convince somebody of something doesn't mean YOU have to waste your valuable time with it just to get the last word, and that is what this sounds like.

And while I don't want to sound snobbish and I CERTAINLY don't mean all music fans or forum members anywhere, I don't think too many people who spend a lot of their time on a discussion board dedicated to not simply music but to ONE band have a lot of political knowledge they can draw on. If they REALLY feel Radiohead is important enough to devote a whole forum to then I think their plates are pretty full already and I don't think the ramifications of something Donald Rumsfeld said last year, voter fraud or illegal domestic spying is high on their priority list.

"So who IS this Abramoff dude they keep talking about? What band is he in?"

[Chris]

Quote by: lili462 yes i know this is old news. but someone on a non-debate forum, started a debate with me over a connection between iraq(sadaam) and al-qaeda. i just want to get everyones opinion, and please no 9/11 commission, i have been over that tonight already. Please, do discuss. if you would like to see the debate here is the link:http://www.mortigitempo.com/too_bore...7&page=9&pp=10 Start on page 9, i am under the same username. i told him that if he wanted to debate over it to come here and do so, but apparently he has not.

Sorry I get a

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page.

[lili462]

Quote by: Chris the Chees No, don't cave into the, by backing down on the debate. Who cares if its a radiohead fan forum, if you've got a good point to make and they think they can call you a moron for making it then they are bag out of order. PS. Go on there and tell them that the Manic Street Preachers are better than radio head.

I'm not caving, i told them to come here. the debate started in the current events forum, in a topic called "is iraq nam all over again". anyways i just dont think its the thread or forum that this needs to be debated in. They need to come here,so a fair debate can be taken place, with just more than three people.i really dont care, i spoke my piece on the matter. Basically to them its a matter of who gets the last word. after giving up on the topic, one of the people posted we win. I dont want to even debate with immature people like that.